The King against John Myers. [in the COURT of KING'S BENCH.]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 April 1795 |
| Date | 29 April 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 530
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
the king against john myers. Wednesday, April 29th, 1795. The stat. 18 Geo. 3, c. 19, which enables the Court in certain cases to make an order on the treasurer of the "county, riding, or division," where the offence was committed, to pay the prosecutor and his witnesses their expences, extends to inferior districts having jurisdiction to try felons and raising their own rates similar to the county rates. This was an indictment against the defendant, as treasurer of the division of Kesteven in the county of Lincoln, for disobedience of an or(Jer made upon the defendant by Mr. Baron Hotham at the assizes holden at Lincoln on the 17th of July, 1790, for the payment of the sum of 111. 3s. 6d. for the costs and charges incurred by a prosecutor and his witnesses in prosecuting and giving evidence before the grand jury upon a certain indictment preferred by the prosecutor against E. Macdonald for privately stealing from the person of the prosecutor in the borough of Stamford which is locally situated in the Division of Kesteven, a certain sum of money mentioned in the indictment. To this indictment the defendant pleaded not guilty; and on the trial before Mr. Justice Wilson at the assizes holden at Lincoln in August, 1793 the defendant was found guilty, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following case. One Thomas Collins and one James Hammond were bound by recognizance, the former to prefer a bill of indictment and give evidence, and the latter to give evidence at the then next assizes to be holden in and for the county of Lincoln against b' Macdonald for the offence in the indictment mentioned. In performance of the condition of the recognizance they there prosecuted and gave evidence against E. Macdonald before the grand jury in and for the said county, who returned that [238] the bill of indictment was not a true bill. At the same assizes an order was made by Mr. Baron Hotham upon the defendant as treasurer of the said Division of Kesteven to pay to 6T. R.239. THE KING V. MYfiRS 531 the attorney for the prosecutor the sum of money in the said indictment mentioned for the costs and charges of the prosecutor and his witnesses. The order was duly presented to the defendant; who refused to pay the sum of money in pursuance of the order. The Mayor and Aldermen of the Borough of Stamford, as justices of the peace for the borough, together with the recorder or his deputy,-have by prescription a jurisdiction to try persons charged with capital and other offences committed within the borough, which jurisdiction they have heretofore exercised and have yet power so to do. There is a distinct treasurer for the borough of Stamford. They raise their own rates within the borough similar to the county rates, and the inhabitants of that borough are not rated nor ever contribute to the rates for the Division of Kesteven, or receive any relief from the rates levied within the Division of...
To continue reading
Request your trial